Not Ron Paul or Huntsman – Maybe Johnson, Maybe Obama

I’m conflicted. Like Andrew Sullivan, after the barrage of news and pushback on Ron Paul and the racist newsletters published under his name for so many years, I think it would be almost impossible to pull the lever for the man. How can a man with this sort of baggage sit in the White House? Even if he does represent our best hope for peace, without some very public explanation and denunciation that actually ties up all the loose ends, Paul is simply too toxic at this point. It shakes my confidence in his judgment and character, even if I find his message about war and peace compelling.

Unlike Sullivan, I don’t see any reason to support Huntsman over Obama. Andrew is still very much concerned with reforming conservatism. I am not. Huntsman may be a good spokesman for a more rational, compassionate conservatism – an American Dave Cameron, perhaps – but I have no interest in bringing Cameroon politics to the United States. And here’s where things get complicated.

I believe in free markets and limited government, in a non-interventionist foreign policy, and in civil liberties here at home – an end to the war on drugs, the excesses of the war on terror, the shuttering of Gitmo and the end of anything even remotely resembling torture, assassination, and so forth. But I also believe that in a recession we need pro-growth monetary and fiscal policy. I believe that Obamacare, for all its flaws, is better than the status quo (and that something closer to single payer makes a hell of a lot more sense.) I don’t want to see the collapse of those parts of the state that actually help people or help fund special needs programs in schools. I don’t want to see a bunch of federal employees laid off, especially during times of extremely high unemployment (though I think the Postal Service is going to have to thin up at some point, and that will include layoffs I’m afraid.)

Someone like Gary Johnson represents what I believe in when it comes to ending harmful policies on drugs, war, and so forth much better than Obama. But Obama is a competent administrator with basically liberal values that I share (again, not including the drug war and foreign policy.) Huntsman is far to the right of me, and there is no reason to believe that he’d be any better than Obama on the many issues Obama has been a disappointment. He’d likely be better than many of his rivals, but that’s no reason to support him.

So assuming that Johnson wins the LP nod, and someone like Romney wins the GOP nod, then the question becomes what a vote for Johnson does to the outcome of the general. This is politics, and as far as I’m concerned the lesser of two evils is still better than the greater. I’d rather see Obama back in the White House and Romney back ‘unemployed’ in Massachusetts.

Then again, I’m voting in Arizona. It’s almost certainly going to go Red. The moral dilemma I face is almost certainly inconsequential. More than likely I’ll still vote for Paul in the primary. The general is a long ways off. Hopefully I’ll have my mind better made by then.

Share this:

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

40 Responses

While presidential elections are important symbolically, I think a lot of lessons we’re seeing since 2010 is simply that there’s a lot of stuff that is dependent on the make-up of Congress and of state government. In both cases Arizona is a pretty ripe battleground, and I think you’d have a decent chance of making an impact there if you were to focus your efforts on getting folks excited about candidates who might win in marginal congressional districts. (This is of course assuming that the redistricting plan falls through and you stick with current districts. If instead the courts tell Jan Brewer to shove it the field’s wide open.)

There’s a senate seat and a bunch of congressional seats up for grabs. Finding the best possible candidates there would be the best possible way of making Obama hew closer to your policy preferences.Report

The other problem is current efforts in certain states controlled by Team Red to disenfranchise – via newly constructed “it’s a tax but not a poll tax” BS, ever-tightening “ID Requirements”, and FUD campaigns – voters who are in demographics (elderly, poor, etc) that tend to vote Team Blue.Report

I have always thought of gerrymandering as a necessary evil. On the one hand, every time I see it done it makes me a little angry. On the other hand, since geo-demographics are always changing, it seems like it will always be a thing everyone tries to take advantage of… so I kind of prefer that it’s done so blatantly, by both sides, all the time. Seems like there’s an expected balance that way.Report

Well, gerrymandering is further evidence that if something – anything! – has political value, it will be fundamentally exploited for political purposes. Even transmogrified into unrecognizable shapes and patterns.

There must be a natural law in there somewhere: over time, any thing with political value will trend increasingly towards being entirely corrupted by politics.Report

In practice, Gerrymandering is a great way for the “our way or the highway” folks to ensure that the other side has no say.

It’s also a way they can CONTINUE to ensure that the other side has no functional influence on government, by continually redrawing the maps to keep the out-of-power party in the “minority.”

To give one great example: Texas (which I’ll use because it is (a) large and (b) indicative and (c) the numbers were easy to get), a “Red State”, is something close to evenly split in terms of Republican-vs-Democrat. If we take the 2008 presidential race, McCain got 55% of the vote there to Obama’s 45% of the vote.

Theoretically, what we ought to see then is a similar close-split in the legislature, right? Except that it’s not. Thanks to Gerrymandering of districts, the Texas House is 101 Republicans, 45 Democrats. The Texas Senate is 19 Republicans, 12 Democrats. To the US House of Representatives, they send 23 Republicans and only 9 Democrats.

All of this is achieved by deliberately, consistently piling all the “likely Democrats” into as many stronghold districts (90%+) as they can, while spreading the rest into as many “strongly outnumbered” (30-40%) districts as possible.

There wasn’t much difference in the 2008 elections from today, either. In fact, if you look at the makeup of the delegation over the years, it’s pretty consistent that “redistricting” has been pursued in a definitive way to functionally disenfranchise the “other side.”

In what alternate dimension do we call something this clearly corrupt a “Representative” form of government?Report

And conversely, Maryland went for Obama 61-38 but with the current redistricting (under a Dem State Legislature and Dem Gov) will have probably have 7 out of its 8 seats go Demcrat in 2012 (up from 6 out of 8 now).

The fight in Maryland though was over whether there were enough majority-minority districts. (currently there are 2, and one of them was sliced up a little to poach the Western Republican seat. Trying to add a third though, would have guaranteed two safe Republican seats).Report

The problem with relying on adversarial process to rein in gerrymandering is two-fold:

1) It consolidates the power of the two major parties. They can collude to keep 3rd parties from being able to get an electoral foothold.

2) On some issue (such as making seats hard to contest) the incumbent politicians have the same interests irrespective of parry affilitation.

I think the solution is to remove human discretion form the process as much as possible. I understand there are mathematical tools available that can judge the extent to which districts are gerrymandered. These tools could be used to rein in the worst of the excesses.

Another option would be to use a different voting system for congress, such as Single Transferable Vote or Proportional Representation, which require fewer districts, or none at all. After all, the reason the Senate doesn’t have this problem is that the only boundaries they use are very hard to change.Report

But I also believe that in a recession we need pro-growth monetary and fiscal policy.

Obama isn’t going to accomplish that, and what he has accomplished on that front has been characterized as either inefficient or insufficient by experts on both sides of the “stimulus” issue, am I correct?Report

That’s a fair criticism. And trying to explain the failure of the stimulus on political possibility grounds (ie., that a bigger stimulus would never have made it through Congress) doesn’t change the fact that it was a failure – at least in terms of what it was supposed to achieve. On the other hand, there is the idea that borrowing is cheap right now, so there’s that …

Personally, I think for the next decade (or two?) we’ll be living in a stimulus-resistant economy. We’ve don’t have any sectors to stimulate.Report

I just think the ED is a little wrapped up in the progressive siren song, and I understand that. I would love to see prudent financial activity undertaken by the government, and such activity would dictate infrastructure investment in times of high unemployment and low interest rates.

But I would just like to pose the question to E.D.: If you would like pro-growth monetary and fiscal policy, who would you like administering it?

All we have to choose from is warmongering corporate lackeys of some degree, and I would think Kain understands this.Report

I’d be fine with printing more money and then sending checks out directly to people to spend themselves (on top of some much-needed investment in infrastructure, including digital infrastructure, which would not be stimulative so much in the short-term but would make good sense in the long-term.)Report

The question is, however, who would you trust to follow through on that?

Its easy to come up with the whats of good governance, its the hows of good governance and its agency problems that are difficult. When you get to this level of bureaucracy and complexity, I think the “how” becomes a problem with no good answer.Report

I’m in the same boat as you, Kain. There’s a better chance of the sun spontaneously going supernova tomorrow morning at precisely 8am GMT than Kansas going for Obama over the GOP nominee. If I were in a swing state, my decision would be a lot more difficult, but his certain defeat frees me to vote for who I think is the best candidate rather than the best candidate with a legitimate shot at being elected. If Gary Johnson gets the LP nomination or Buddy Roemer gets the AE nomination, they’ll be at the top of my list.Report

Not so sure about AZ going red. it was surprisingly Blue last time, and the Latinos are increasing (maybe? actually, the folks I knew down there headed home. but all the graybeards can’t be happy as Phoenix becomes a wasteland…)Report

What exactly are the policy implications of the Ron Paul newsletters that concern you?

A second Obama term might not be so bad if the Republicans can hold the House. Doesn’t matter who’s in the White House if Congress won’t give him the legislation he wants to sign. And one-party Republican rule didn’t go so well. Not sure how I feel about Obama potentially nominating Scalia’s replacement if he should die, though.Report

I’m not convinced that a strong LP party, or other 3rd party, run will hurt Obama. I can imagine a scenario in which people who don’t like Romney, but don’t want to vote for Obama, would vote for the 3rd party gal or guy.

It’s possible that I will vote for Obama. I’d say it’s more likely at this point that I will vote for Johnson. It will not be an easy lever to pull either way given my distaste for voting third party.Report

The vote for Obama would be an interesting choice. Even if Paul wrote the newsletters and believed every single word of them, I see little chance of that impacting any real policies.

Obama, on the other hand, would continue to run the foreign wars, Gitmo and a host of other things that he has run for the past few years. This is not speculation. We have a track record.

It’s an interesting claculation. The idea seems to be that “racist” is an absolute, unequivocal non-starter. Or even a whiff of racism. Again, fair enough. But… administering Iraq and Afghanistan and and the civil liberties is not?

I have no worries about Paul’s actual policies. I have a problem with the racism and bigotry expressed in those newsletters being directly attached to the POTUS. I’m leaning toward Johnson, like I said. In a month I could swing back to Paul. I’m fickle if you haven’t noticed.Report

Well, Paul’s also a liar, EDK, unless you buy his denials about the newsletters, which seems a lot for a reasonable man to swallow. Even if he didn’t somehow read the stuff his byline was on, he was laying down with some really dirty dogs, and has the fleas to show for it.Report

“I have a problem with the racism and bigotry expressed in those newsletters being directly attached to the POTUS.”

Fair enough. But what about the racism and bigotry of hard policies like the War on Drugs? These are policies that Obama has actively pursued.

Rhetoric matters. Motives matter. But at the end of the day, if what you really care about is something like the “black community,” would it be better to vote for an NAACP board member who supports the War on Drugs, or a KKK member who opposes it? It’s all fine and good to care about racism and bigotry being expressed in newsletters. But if you honestly think that the War on Drugs is leading to countless deaths, millions of unjustified incarcerations, the devastation of communities across the land, and I think you honestly do believe that, it would seem that a vote for Paul would be the only choice. Except maybe a vote for Johnson.

Right, and Johnson right now is more and more appealing. Look, I totally understand and even largely agree with what you’re saying. But the extent of these newsletters is really bothersome. Even though I really do like Ron Paul, I’m not sure that I could pull the lever for him after this – even fully agreeing with you on the policy questions. I think this sums up my feelings pretty well. I might feel differently if Johnson were not an option.Report

Maybe I’m reading Obama somewhat differently. Obama’s heroes are Lincoln and to a lesser extent in modern times, (more as a cautionary example) Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton turned his war in the Balkans over to the military, lock stock and barrel. He didn’t interfere with the war making and kept steady pressure on the warring parties with competent statecraft, culminating in the Dayton Peace Accords. Wesley Clark gave him a big win where every other warrior going back into ancient history had anything beyond a draw.

Now I don’t propose to compare Libya to the Balkans beyond this cursory level, but Obama’s intervention in Libya was more like Clinton in the Balkans than Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ecch, it’s a terrible comparison, I’ll grant you, eventually we did put boots on the ground as peacekeepers, but not for well over a year. And we’re still there, more here.

Lincoln grew ever-angrier as the Civil War dragged on. He relieved commander after commander in search of someone who could win. He found his man in Grant and Grant found his winner in Sherman and by God he got his victory. The big loss came after the fighting ended: Reconstruction was a botch, resulting in hurt feelings to this day.

Obama tried to close Gitmo, the GOP would have none of it. I’m not going to stick my neck out and say Obama’s been a firm advocate for civil liberties and open government as he promised. He’s proven a sore disappointment in those regards. But I just don’t see Endless War as part of Obama’s policy. I see something else entirely, a president who has the human decency to know good men are dying for him.Report

I have the dubious “luck” to live in New York, so my vote for Gary Johnson ends up being a protest vote. But I feel that it’s my only option. I cannot support Obama much less vote for him, after the things he has failed to do in the field of freedom. None of the Republicans come close either – they are anti-evolution, anti-choice, and none save Paul is willing to end the War on (some) Drugs (and too many want to ratchet up the anti-Iran rhetoric).

Voting for Gary Johnson is something that I won’t have to apologize for, or explain away. I won’t have to figuratively “hold my nose” in the voting booth.

I refuse to buy into the false notion that by voting a third party I am merely helping one of the main two parties – that is one of the ways the big two stay in power, of course…by marginalizing anyone who seriously looks at alternatives.Report

Religious Institutions. Religious institutions may resume services subject to the following conditions, which apply to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, interfaith centers, and any other space, including rented space, where religious or faith gatherings are held: 1. Indoor religious gatherings are limited to no more than ten people. 2. Outdoor religious gatherings of up to 250 people are allowed. Outdoor services may be held on any outdoor space the religious institution owns, rents, or reserves for use. 3. All attendees at either indoor or outdoor services must maintain appropriate social distancing of six feet and wear face masks or facial coverings at all times. 4. There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service. 5. Collection plates or receptacles may not be passed to or between attendees. 6. There should be no hand shaking or other physical contact between congregants before, during, or after religious services. Attendees shall not congregate with other attendees on the property where religious services are being held before or after services. Family members or those who live in the same household or who attend a service together in the same vehicle may be closer than six feet apart but shall remain at least six feet apart from any other persons or family groups. 7. Singing is permitted, but not recommended. If singing takes place, only the choir or religious leaders may sing. Any person singing without a mask or facial covering must maintain a 12-foot distance from other persons, including religious leaders, other singers, or the congregation. 8. Outdoor or drive-in services may be conducted with attendees remaining in their vehicles. If utilizing parking lots for either holding for religious services or for parking for services held elsewhere on the premises, religious institutions shall ensure there is adequate parking available. 9. All high touch areas, (including benches, chairs, etc.) must be cleaned and decontaminated after every service. 10. Religious institutions are encouraged to follow the guidelines issued by Governor Hogan.

“There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service,” the order says in a section delineating norms and restrictions on religious services.

The consumption of the consecrated species at Mass, at least by the celebrant, is an integral part of the Eucharistic rite. Rules prohibiting even the celebrating priest from receiving the Eucharist would ban the licit celebration of Mass by any priest.

CNA asked the Howard County public affairs office to comment on how the rule aligns with First Amendment religious freedom and free exercise rights.

Howard County spokesman Scott Peterson told CNA in a statement that "Howard County has not fully implemented Phase 1 of Reopening. We continue to do an incremental rollout based on health and safety guidelines, analysis of data and metrics specific to Howard County and in consultation with our local Health Department."

"With this said," Peterson added, "we continue to get stakeholder feedback in order to fully reopen to Phase 1."

The executive order also limits attendance at indoor worship spaces to 10 people or fewer, limits outdoor services to 250 socially-distanced people wearing masks, forbids the passing of collection plates, and bans handshakes and physical contact between worshippers.

In contrast to the 10-person limit for churches, establishments listed in the order that do not host religious services are permitted to operate at 50% capacity.

In the early days of the Coronavirus epidemic, there were hopes that the disease could be treated with a compound called hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ is a long-established inexpensive medicine that is widely used to treat malaria. It also has uses for treating rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. There had been some indications that HCQ could treat SARS virus infections by attacking the spike proteins that coronaviruses use to latch onto cells and inject their genetic material. Initial small-scale studies of the drug on COVID-19 patients indicated some positive effect (in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin). President Trump, in March, promoted HCQ as a game-changer and is apparently taking it as a prophylaxis after potentially being exposed by White House staff.

Initial claims of the efficacy of this therapy were a perfect illustration of why we base decisions on scientific studies and not anecdotes. By late March, Twitter was filled with stories of "my cousin's mother's former roommate was on death's door and took this therapy and miraculously recovered". But such stories, even assuming they are true, mean nothing. With COVID-19, we know that seriously ill people reach an inflection point where they either recover or die. If they died while taking the HCQ regimen, we don't hear from them because...they died. And if they recover without taking it, we don't hear from them because...they didn't take it. Our simian brains have evolved to think that correlation is causation. But it isn't. If I sacrificed a goat in every COVID-19 patient's room, some of them would recover just by chance. That doesn't mean we should start a massive holocaust of caprines.

However, even putting aside anecdotes, there were good reasons to believe the HCQ regimen might work. And given the seriousness of this disease and the desperation of those trying to save lives, it's understandable that doctors began using it for critically ill patients and scientists began researching its efficacy.

Why Trump became fixated on it is equally understandable. Trump has been looking for a quick fix to this crisis since Day One. Denial failed. Closing off (some) travel to China failed. A vaccine is months if not years away. So HCQ offered him what he wanted -- a way to fix this problem without the hard work, tough choices and sacrifice of stay-at-home orders, masks, isolation and quarantine. So eager were they to adopt the quick fix, the Administration made plans to distribute millions of doses of this unproven drug in lieu of taking more concrete steps to address the crisis.[efn_note]Although the claim that Trump stands to profit off HCQ sales does not appear to hold much water.[/efn_note]

This is also why certain fringe corners of the internet became fixated on it. There has arisen a subset of the COVID Truthers that I'm calling HCQ Truthers: people who believe that HCQ isn't just something that may save some lives but is, in fact, a miracle cure that it's only being held back so that...well, take your pick. So that Democrats can wreck the economy. So that Bill Gates can inject us with tracking devices. So that we can clear off the Social Security rolls. And this isn't just a US phenomenon nor is it all about Trump. Overseas friends tell me that COVID trutherism in general and HCQ trutherism in particular have arisen all over the Western World.

It's no accident that the HCQ Truthers seem to share a great deal of headspace with the anti-Vaxxers. It fills the same needs

In both cases, the idea was started by flawed studies. The initial studies out of China and France that indicated HCQ worked were heavily criticized for methodological errors (although note that neither claimed it was a miracle cure). Since then, larger studies have shown no effect.

HCQ trutherism offers an explanation for tragedy beyond the random cruelty of nature. Just as anti-vaxxers don't want to believe that sometimes autism just happens, HCQ Truthers don't want to believe that sometimes nature just releases awful epidemics on us. It's more comforting, in some ways, to think that bad happenings are all part of a plan by shadowy forces.

There is, however, another crazy side that doesn't get as much attention because their crazy is a bit more subtle. These are the people who have decided that, since Trump is touting the HCQ treatment, it must not work. It can not work. It can not be allowed to work. There is an undisguised glee when studies show that HCQ does not work and a willingness to blame HCQ shortages on Trump and only Trump.[efn_note]Not to mention the odd fish tank cleaner poisoning that has nothing to do with him.[/efn_note]

In between the two camps are everyone else: scientists, doctors and ordinary folk who just want to know whether this thing works or not, politics and conspiracy theories be damned. Well, last week, we got a big indication that it does not. A massive study out of the Lancet concluded that the HCQ regimen has no measurable positive effect. In fact, death rates were higher for those who took the regimen, likely due to heart arrhythmias induced by the drug.

So is the debate over? Can we move on from HCQ? Not quite.

First of all, the study is a retrospective study, looking backward at nearly 100,000 cases over the last four months. That's a massive sample that allows one to correct for potential confounding factors. But it's not a double-blind trial, so there may be certain biases that can not be avoided. In response to the publication, a group doing a controlled study unblinded some of their data (that is, they let an independent group look up who was getting the actual HCQ and who was getting a placebo). It did not show enough of a safety concern to warrant ending the study.

It's also worth noting that because this is an unproven therapy, it is usually being used on only the sickest patients (the odd President of the United States aside). It's possible earlier use of the drug, when the body is not already at war with itself, could help.

With those caveats in mind, however, this study at least makes it clear that HCQ is not the miracle cure some fringe corners of the internet are pretending it is. And it should make doctors hesitant in giving to people who already have heart issues.

As you can imagine, this has only fed the twin camps of derangement. The truther arguments tend to fall into the usual holes that truther theories do:

"How can this be a four-month study when we only learned about COVID in January!" The HCQ protocol started being used almost immediately because of previous research on coronaviruses.

"How come all of the sudden this safe medicine that people use all the time is dangerous?!" The side effects of HCQ have been well known for years and have always required consideration and management. They may be showing up more strongly here because it is being given to patients whose bodies are already under extreme stress. Also, azithromycin may amplify some of those side effects.

"They just hate Trump." Not everything is about Donald Trump. If it turned out that kissing Donald Trump's giant orange backside cured COVID, scientists would be the first ones telling people to line up and use chapstick.

The other camp's response has ranged from undisguised glee -- that is, joy at the idea that we won't be saving lives cheaply -- to bizarre claims that Trump should be charged with crimes for touting this unproven therapy.

(A perfect illustration of the dementia: former FDA Head Scott Gottlieb -- who has been a Godsend for objective analysis during the pandemic -- tweeted out the results of the RECOVERY unblinding yesterday morning and noted that it showed no increased safety risk. He was immediately dogpiled by one side insisting he was trying to conceal the miracle cure of HCQ and the other insisting he is a Trumpist doing the Orange Man's dirty work.)

In the end, the lunatics do not matter. Whether HCQ works or not, whether it is used or not, will be mostly determined by doctors and will mostly be based on the evidence we have in front of us. If HCQ fails -- and it's not looking good -- my only response will be massive disappointment. Had HCQ worked, it would have been a gift from the heavens. It is a well-known, well-studied drug that can be manufactured cheaply in bulk. Had it worked, we could have saved thousands of lives, prevented hundreds of thousands of long-term injuries and saved trillions of dollars. That it doesn't appear to work -- certainly not miraculously -- is not entirely unexpected but is also a tragedy.

{C1} The Christian Science Monitor looks at 1918 and how sports handled that pandemic, and the role it played in giving rise to college football.

"That's really what started the big boom of college football in the 1920s," said Jeremy Swick, historian at the College Football Hall of Fame. "People were ready. They were back from war. They wanted to play football again. There weren't as many restrictions about going out. You could enroll back in school pretty easily. You see a great level of talent come back into the atmosphere. There's new money. It started to get to the roar of the Roaring '20s and that's when you see the stadiums arm race. Who can build the biggest and baddest stadium?"

{C2} During times of rapid change, social science is supposed to be able to help lead the way or at least decipher what is going on. Or maybe not...

But while Willer, Van Bavel, and their colleagues were putting together their paper, another team of researchers put together their own, entirely opposite, call to arms: a plea, in the face of an avalanche of behavioral science research on COVID-19, for psychology researchers to have some humility. This paper—currently published online in draft format and seeding avid debates on social media—argues that much of psychological research is nowhere near the point of being ready to help in a crisis. Instead, it sketches out an “evidence readiness” framework to help people determine when the field will be.

{C3} There is a related story about AI - which is predisposed towards tracking slow change over time - is having trouble keeping up.

{C4} The Covid-19 does not bode well for higher education is not news. They may have a lot of difficulty opening up (and maybe shouldn't). An added wrinkle is kids taking a gap year, which is potentially a problem because those most able to pay may be least likely to attend.

{C5} People who can see the faults with abstinence only education fail to see how that logic (We shouldn't give guidance to people doing things we would rather they not do in the first place). Emily Oster argues that the extreme message of public health advocates to Just Stay Home is counterproductive.

When people are advised that one very difficult behavior is safe, and (implicitly or not) that everything else is risky, they may crack under the pressure, or throw up their hands. That is, if people think all activities (other than staying home) are equally risky, they figure they might as well do those that are more fun. If taking a walk at a six-foot distance from a friend puts me at very high risk, why not just have that friend and a bunch of others over for a barbecue? It’s more fun. This is an exaggeration, of course, but different activities carry very different risks, and conscientious civic leaders should actively help people choose among them.

{C6} A look at what canceling the football season will do to the little guys - non-power schools. Ironically, they may sustain less damage due to fewer financial obligations relying on the money that won't be coming in. Be that as it may, Fordham has disestablished its baseball program.

{C7} Bans on evictions and rental spikes could have the main effect of simply pushing out small investors, rather than protecting renters. In a more good-faith economy this would be less of an issue because landlords would work with tenants. Which some are, though I don't have too much faith about it being widespread.

{C8} Three cheers for Nick Saban. Football coaches are cultural leaders of a sort. One is about to become a senator in Alabama, even. What they do matters.

The American college experience for better or for worse revolves around the residency factor. We have turned college into a relatively safe place for young adults to the test the limits of freedom without suffering too many consequences. Better to miss a day of classes because you drank too much than to miss a day of an apprenticeship or job and get fired. College was cut short this semester because of COVID and colleges are freaking out about whether they can open up dorms in the fall. The dorms are big money makers and it is hard to justify huge tuition bucks for zoom lectures even for elite universities. Maybe especially for them. California State University announced that Fall 2020 is going to be largely online. My undergrad alma mater sent out an e-mail blast announcing their plan to reopen in the fall with "mostly" in person classes. The President admitted that the plan was a work in progress but it strikes me as a combination of common sense and extreme wishful thinking. The plan may include:

1. Staggered drop-off days to limit density as we return.

This sounds reasonable but only in a temporary way because eventually everyone will be back on campus, living in dorm rooms together, needing to use communal bathrooms and showers.

2. Students would be tested for COVID-19 on campus at least twice in the first 14 days.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as the testing is available. Our capacity for testing so far in this country has not been great.

3. Anyone experiencing symptoms would be tested immediately. Students who test positive would be cared for in a separate dormitory area where food would be brought to the room and where the student could still access classes remotely.

Nothing wrong here. Outbreaks of certain diseases are not unknown in the college setting. During my senior year, there was an outbreak of a rather nasty strain of gastroenteritis. Other universities have experienced meningitis outbreaks.

4. All students would take their temperature and report symptoms daily.

This one is also reasonable but is going to involve spying on students and coming up with a punishment mechanism. How will they make sure students are not lying?

5. We would also require that socializing be kept to a minimum in the beginning, with proper PPE (masks) and social distancing. As time went on, we would seek to open up more, and students could socialize and eat together in small groups.

I have no idea how they tend for this to happen and it sets of all my lawyer bells for carefully crafted language that attempts to answer a concern or question but also admits "we got nothing." Maybe today's students are more somber and sincere but you are going to have around 500 eighteen year olds who are away from their parents for the first time and another 1500 nineteen to twenty-one year olds who had their semester rudely interrupted and might now be reunited with boyfriends and girlfriends. Are they going to assign eating times for the dining hall and put up solo eating cubicles that get wiped down and disinfected after each use? Assign times to use laundry facilities in each dorm? Cancel the clubs? Cancel performances by the theatre, dance, and music departments?

I am sympathetic to my alma I love it but and realize that a lot of colleges and universities would take a real hit financially without residency. This includes universities with reasonable to very large endowments. Only the ones with hedge fund size endowments would not suffer but the last part of the plain sounds not fully thought out yet even if my college's current President admitted: "Life on campus will not look the same as it did pre-pandemic" The only way i see number 5 working is if requiring is read as "requiring."

Seems that the theory that Covid-19 can be spread by asymptomatic people has very shaky evidence in support of it. Turns out the case this assumption was made from was based on a single woman who infected 4 others. Researchers talked to the 4 patients, and they all said the patient 0 did not appear ill, but they could not speak to patient 0 at the time.

So they finally got to talk to her, and she said she was feeling ill, but powered through with the aid of modern pharmaceuticals.

Ten Second News

Today we couldn’t be happier to announce that Vox Media and New York Media are merging to create the leading independent modern media company. Our combined business will be called Vox Media and will serve hundreds of millions of audience members wherever they prefer to enjoy our work.

In a nation in turmoil, it's nice to have even a small bit of good news:

Representative Steve King of Iowa, the nine-term Republican with a history of racist comments who only recently became a party pariah, lost his bid for renomination early Wednesday, one of the biggest defeats of the 2020 primary season in any state.

In a five-way primary, Mr. King was defeated by Randy Feenstra, a state senator, who had the backing of mainstream state and national Republicans who found Mr. King an embarrassment and, crucially, a threat to a safe Republican seat if he were on the ballot in November.

The defeat was most likely the final political blow to one of the nation’s most divisive elected officials, whose insults of undocumented immigrants foretold the messaging of President Trump, and whose flirtations with extremism led him far from rural Iowa, to meetings with anti-Muslim crusaders in Europe and an endorsement of a Toronto mayoral candidate with neo-Nazi ties.

King, you may remember, was stripped of his committee assignments last year when he defended white supremacism. Two years ago, he almost lost his Congressional seat in the general. That is, a seat that Republicans have held since 1986, usually win by double digits and a district Trump carried by a whopping 27 points almost came within a point or two of voting in a Democrat. That's how repulsive King had gotten.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Enjoy retirement, Congressman. Oops. Sorry. In January, it will be former Congressman.

Comment →

From the Daily Mail: Deadliest city in America plans to disband its entire police force and fire 270 cops to deal with budget crunch

The deadliest city in America is disbanding its entire police force and firing 270 cops in an effort to deal with a massive budget crunch.

...

The police union says the force, which will not be unionized, is simply a union-busting move that is meant to get out of contracts with current employees. Any city officers that are hired to the county force will lose the benefits they had on the unionized force.

Oak Park police say they are investigating “suspicious circumstances” after two attorneys — including one who served as a hearing officer in several high-profile Chicago police misconduct cases — were found dead in their home in the western suburb Monday night.

Officers were called about 7:30 p.m. for a well-being check inside a home in the 500 block of Fair Oaks Avenue, near Chicago Avenue, and found the couple dead inside, Oak Park spokesman David Powers said in an emailed statement. Authorities later identified them as Thomas E. Johnson, 69, and Leslie Ann Jones, 67, husband and wife attorneys who worked in Chicago.

The preliminary report from an independent autopsy ordered by George Floyd's family says the 46 year old man's death was "caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

The independent examiners found that weight on the back, handcuffs and positioning were contributory factors because they impaired the ability of Floyd's diaphragm to function, according to the report.

Dr. Michael Baden and the University of Michigan Medical School's director of autopsy and forensic services, Dr. Allecia Wilson, handled the examination, according to family attorney Ben Crump.

Baden, who was New York's medical examiner in 1978 and 1979, had previously performed independent autopsies on Eric Garner, who was killed by a police officer in Staten Island, New York, in 2014 and Michael Brown, who was shot by officers in Ferguson, Missouri, that same year.

Featured Comment

Oddly, the video was dropped by an attorney friend the men, because he thought it would exonerate them. He assumed when people saw Aubrey turn and try to defend himself, everyone would see what they did: a dangerous animal needing to be put down.